This is why – evolution has been the longest running phenomenon ever, beating anything made by man quite easily. Because before there was mind, there was matter, whether it was perceived or not. That includes even the idea of God, which is probably the best brand ever built. Arguably, evolution’s success can be attributed to its having no end goal in mind. Can that work for a brand?

I have to admit, that can be difficult. It’s also easy to think of the brand as a shared idea of a self image. But even in the best of companies, this idea is usually top driven. There is a “creator”. A creator or a set of them who, over a period of time, become less objective, and develop biases and imperfections. Moving further on, this becomes what I call a brand ego. That usually leads to the brand moving away from its intended consumers, and eventually becoming irrelevant. It is possible that the current “creationist” tenets of brand building are a result of the media vehicles of the past. It allowed brand managers to dictate a certain narrative. But that era has long passed.

On the other hand, it isn’t really possible to build a brand with no outcome in mind. There needs to be a middle path. It definitely has to start with some outcome defined by a timeframe. The best years of the brand are when it learns to channel the zeitgeist to meet its own ends. But in the long run, how can this be sustained? How objective can a brand be about its self image, and how can it be objective?

Maybe start with focusing on the brand’s purpose in the life of the consumer as opposed to drumming up a purpose-driven brand. Use research for understanding and insights, rather than validations. And in addition to measuring the efficiency of ad serving, maybe spare some time to understanding the effectiveness of communication. Not an exhaustive list, but thought starters.

In essence, be driven by evolution not the ego. Be attached to the customer need, and not the solution you made. Having said all of that, evolution can afford to be “mindless” because it has no time constraints. Brands, on the other hand have short term business responsibilities. I also realise that objectivity is difficult. After all, the question of “whose interests should a brand serve” has multi-dimensional answers. And irrespective of what stakeholder combination one chooses, their perspective is only an abstraction of what the brand purpose really is!

Dove’s immensely viewed ‘Real Beauty’ video has sparked a parody and many debates including how the content would (or would not) help sales. But what it actually reminded me of was a quote attributed to Marty Neumeier (via)

Brand isn’t what you say about your product, it’s what other people say about your product.

A little reminder that the marketer’s best attempts at defining the user’s perceptions have a chance of failing, especially in the era when everyone is a publisher. Sometime back, I’d read a post on Smashing Magazine which argued that the traditional way of brand building – repetition and consistency – applicable in a time when media options were limited, needs to give way to a playful, adaptive brand that is flexible while keeping intact the core principles. (Oreo is one of the better examples here) It defines the brand as an ecosystem of interactions that embraces different platforms, co-creation with customers and proposes a very interesting method to achieve this – apply the concept of ‘minimum viable product‘ to brand design.

On another front, it was heartening to read that at least some feel that venture capital needs to get serious about brand thinking. Though not in so many words, this post is also in alignment with the concept of brand as an ecosystem and gives several good examples of brands earning the trust of users as well as going beyond their products and services in the positioning. This post uses the phrase ‘Clean Slate Brands‘ to describe new, unknown brands who are using better products/services, radical transparency and ‘open operations’ to compete with, and beat more ‘revered’ brands. (follow the link for examples)

But what happens to established brands? How do they redefine themselves to be relevant in this changing scenario? This led me to think about Maslow and his hierarchy of needs. Do you think that the traditional form of brand building and communication focused on the bottom 2 sections – Physiological, Safety? As products and services become more efficient courtesy technological advances, and functionality becomes a given as opposed to a value proposition, should brand design as a science (and brands that have thus far used the traditional method) realign to focus on the top 3 sections – Love/Belonging, Esteem, and Self Actualisation? Think about the cola giants – from thirst to happiness (Coke) and Empathy (Pepsi Refresh) is that what they have been doing?

until next time, a brand’s new story